Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute has penned a fascinating op-ed at the New York Times that explains why conservatives describe themselves as so much happier than liberals:

Many conservatives favor an explanation focusing on lifestyle differences, such as marriage and faith. They note that most conservatives are married; most liberals are not. (The percentages are 53 percent to 33 percent, according to my calculations using data from the 2004 General Social Survey, and almost none of the gap is due to the fact that liberals tend to be younger than conservatives.) Marriage and happiness go together. If two people are demographically the same but one is married and the other is not, the married person will be 18 percentage points more likely to say he or she is very happy than the unmarried person.

The story on religion is much the same. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, conservatives who practice a faith outnumber religious liberals in America nearly four to one. And the link to happiness? You guessed it. Religious participants are nearly twice as likely to say they are very happy about their lives as are secularists (43 percent to 23 percent). The differences don’t depend on education, race, sex or age; the happiness difference exists even when you account for income.

Obviously, Mr. Brooks never met my ex-wife. Still, it is generally true that married people are more apt to describe themselves as “happy,” which is something that has been known for decades.

The key is religion. Having faith in God gives one’s life purpose and meaning. I’ve heard believers say many times that “doing God’s will” makes them feel good. That’s got to play into a happiness quotient.

69 Comments, 32 Threads

Liberals are focused on other people and what they don’t have. “How come Bob has X? That’s unfair. Everyone should have X. Our life is meaningless because of disappointments. We’re miserable.”

Conservatives are focused on themselves and what they do have. “I’ve earned X through hard work. I’m grateful for my family and church and my life is meaningful because of my accomplishments. I’m happy.”

Liberalism is by definition a mental disease involving social envy, conformity, and dishonesty. Conservatism is a state of mind involving social charity, individualism, and integrity.

Pity liberals, but understand that by and large there’s no redemption for the vast majority of them. They will take everything you have as their “fair share”. We can never allow them in power again.

I’ve met liberals who are offended when I use the term “Third World.” That suggests one hell of a lot of time being offended if something that stupid meets the benchmark. Irritation is the centerpiece of the liberal life-style.

Don’t get me started on people holding press conferences because of racist Hallmark Cards.

If the card was actually racist, at least the reaction would have a point. But the latest complaint about “racist” hallmark is about a speaking card showing space aliens congratulating the graduate on his achievement. The card’s sin? The NAACP claims the phrase “black holes” SOUNDS like “black whores”.

Well conservatives often kind of like the way things are. Institutions and culture are are good. Modern liberalism is revolutionary because existing institutions and traditional culture are viewed as corrupt and evil.

People who are happy in the current scheme of things tend towards conservatism, people who are miserable, regardless of the causes of their misery, will tend towards liberalism.

Therefore the liberal has no pangs of conscience when he undermines an institution or mocks a cultural value: he’s merely destroying things that are bad.

People who don’t care what useless or stupid people think, are always going to be happier. If it also happens that most useless and/or stupid people are not conservative, well, we don’t make the rules.

That translates to ‘I don’t give a tinker’s damn what liberals think.” That, *THAT* is what pisses them off. And on a side note: You totalitarian bastages absolutely do not want to experience what I am willing to countenance in order to ensure my grandchildren do not have to fight this again, 20 years down the road.

I think it is because conservatives approach life from a more realistic direction. Conservatives understand that Mankind is inherently sinful, so I do not expect my fellow beings to be altruistic, kind and thoughtful as a general rule. In other words, I am not surprised when people do rotten things. Rather, I am pleasantly surprised when they do good things.

My mother, who was a committed liberal, was constantly shocked when the Soviet Union did something oppressive. When you are an intelligent person who is shocked when a Communist dictatorship is not nice, it means that your chance of happiness in this life is pretty slim. My mother walked in front of a speeding car one day, when she could no longer reconcile her view of human nature with the reality she saw every day.

I am a conservative and, as much as Fallen Man can be, I am content and happy.

Your comment reminds me of my Dad’s current wife, #4 I belive, who came together out west to vist and constantly reminded me “all this land was stolen from the Indians”. No matter where we went or what I showed them of the city or the mountains, again the reminder I was living on stolen land. I finally took the bait and asked “wasn’t (her native) Florida stolen from the Seminoles?” and the completly predicatbale ensuing reaction was respite with obligatory judgement about my bigotry, rascism and insensitivity to all the harm America has perpetrated on the world, of course, and all from a wommen who openly hates any A-list conservative politico, radio host or celeb, you name them.

I once told someone who was always concerned about the land having been stolen from the Indians that if it bothered him that much he should find an Indian and give the Indian his house. It was the last I heard about it.

According to the article, Laura Berman (sexologist) and Helen Fisher (anthropologist) collaborated in the research. They said left wingers do it more often, tho. Right wing people prefer faithful partner with similar views and values. Left wing people prefer independent partners (and I guess milder relationships).

Conservatives value the wisdom of the ages. They want to do the best possible given the human nature, thus they are willing to make earnest efforts to adapt themselves to the world, by finding something of value to accomplish, and try to get good at it. The other side wants to recast the world so it would become adapted to them. No wonder they are miserable!

Gratitude first, then humility, and then potentially happiness. If you start by complaining about the world instead of being thankful for its blessings, can you expect to experience anything besides resentment, grumpiness, and ultimately the compulsion to tell others what they should do?

I think there is a fundamental causality at work here. Unhappy people who take steps to change their lives and become happy will tend to identify and associate with conservatives. Those who prefer to whine that they are not responsible for their own train wreck of a life will more than likely become liberals. Since this latter group will assuredly stay unhappy, there will always be more unhappy liberals than conservatives.

Offhand, I’d say it has to do with how much bacon we consume. Non-bacon-eaters (vegetarians and Moslems especially) have a strong tendency to be angry about sumthin’ all the time and I think they’re jealous that we unapologetically eat bacon. I bet if someone studies the statistics, they’d find that bacon eaters are more likely to be conservatives, and are more likely to be happy.

By the way the original post is a case of “many a truth is said in jest”. If I check for correlation between eating bacon (probably more common among conservatives) and happiness (correlated with conservatism) I’ll bet I’ll find a correlation, too.

But the vast majority of social science studies — inclduing this one, and including zillions of annoying, “Oh look! SCIENTIFIC PROOF liberals are superior to the neanderthal-like conservatives!” ones, at most find correlation, and not causation.

They prove very little or nothing. They no more “prove” liberalism causes intelligence (or vise versa), or conservatism causes happiness, than a study about the relationship between bacon eating and happiness “proves” bacon causes happiness.

“I think there’s a far simpler explanation for why conservatives are happier than liberals: we don’t constantly worry if we’re doing or saying the politically correct thing. Walking through life on eggshells, fretting about offending a protected group or class, while constantly making sure you don’t do or say anything that a fellow liberal could criticize you for, would drive me bonkers.”

Me too. Unfortunately, we have a socialist president and a government that is determined to force political correctness on all of us. Worse, the FCC wants to restrict what’s on the radio under the “fairness doctrine” and they are even trying to regulate what you read and see on the Internet. Liberals, it seems,just can’t accept and tolerate free speech. Why, because free speech is their biggest enemy. Free speech stops liberals and socialists from taking over every aspect of our lives and free speech prevents liberals and socialists from spending us into oblivion, as they have already succeeded in doing in Europe.

In short, free speech is what keeps us free, because as long as you can articulate an idea freely and without fear of being prosecuted, then nobody can really control you. But this window of freedom is closing rapidly. And if Obama gets another term in office it will be totally shut down on us. Don’t let that happen, America. Vote and throw that socialist menace out of the White House. And it’s probably going to be your last chance at keeping “political correctness” from overwhelming your lives.

I recently told a friend of mind I think the arguments used by homosexuals are bad: they confuse TOLERATION (people shouldn’t be put in jail for being homosexuals, not be fired, etc.) with ACCEPTANCE (everybody must agree homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality). The very essence of (real) liberalism is to seperate the two: that I can dislike or even despise someone and still agree he should be tolerated.

If toleration requires acceptance, as the homosexual community’s leaders say, then the converse — non-acceptance implies non-toleration — is also true, and that is the essence of Fascism: that if I dislike something it’s enough to ban it regardless of the rights of anyone else.

My friend, shocked, told me that he sees no flaw with the argument, but that the homosexual movement’s leadership where I live are militant jerks, and they will put a cross on my back if I try to publish it.

Annoyed, I said: “So, the leaders of the homosexual movement will dislike this? In THAT case, they can suck my…”

This piece certainly provided me with a smile for the day. Considering the source, though, I’m not too surprised.

Now, I am a committed liberal. I want the government to make sure people don’t starve or die on the street. I also think they should regulate selfish people (read: corporations, since the SCOTUS has declared they are the same thing) and make sure the air I breathe and the water I drink are clean. And I know plenty of other liberals that feel the same way. And you know, we’re pretty damn happy. Oh sure, there are a number who have smoke coming out of their ears every time they see an editorial in the WSJ, but I suspect there are an equal number of conservatives who feel the same way when they get near the NYT. But to try and plumb the depths of human emotions by determining what their economic/political world view may be is ludicrous.

How about this for an alternative explanation: Liberals are more happy than conservatives because they believe, with the proper intervention and action by governement, the world can be a better place where we all can achieve our potential. Conservatives are less happy because they spend all of their time fighting progress and change and trying to keep things as they are. Now really, does that make anymore sense than the drivel in the coming out of the AEI?

There are vast and growing differences of opinion on the approach conservatives and liberals want to take in moving this country forward. Let’s not explain it using some silly pop psycholgy.

Larry
YOUR first mistake is saying the GOVERMENT should do this, do that, do this, do that, which shows how cluless you are, it is NOT the USG job to take care of you and your surroundings – 98% of USG programs are MORE Screwed up than functioning & do more HARM to people than help

I love it when a liberal makes a statement such as this, especially since it has been pointed out many times that conservatives are far more generous (with their own money) than liberals. Liberals, on the other hand, want to help as long as somebody else is paying for it, and usually doing the work, too. Conservatives have people who actually do something, like Mother Theresa on their side. A fine example of a liberal is the Empire State Building’s Anthony Malkin, who refused to illuminate the building in honor of her 100th birthday.
Lets be honest here, Larry. Liberals are not interested in “trying to help” They are interested in having the government run everything, with them in charge. And that is what conservatives find so evil.

Because when a conservative says, “I am trying to help Jerry”, it means he gives Jerry his own money (or a job or a ride).

But when a liberal says, “I am trying to help Jerry”, it means the liberal wants someone else to be taxed so that the liberal will become a beurocrat in a new freedom-destroying “Federal Jerry Helping Administration”, which apart from anything else will waste 90% of the tax money it extorts to pay the salaries of those working there, and 10% at best to “help” Jerry by teaching him to remain on the FJHA’s dole for ever and ever, Amen.

I think you miss an actual difference between liberals & conservatives. Conservatives believe we choose to act (whether in charity or simple human sympathy) for those in need. It is our responsibility as individuals to help others, as we would be helped ourselves. Note the difference between communities that rebuild after natural disasters: Katrina in NOLA versus the rest of the Gulf Coast. It begans with neighbor helping neighbor as they were able to, individuals offering help, often showing up to do the work, religious & service groups whose members come, often from far away, to help–unpaid—with their resources and skills. We are obligated to help others as we are able.
This is not to say individual liberals don’t do the same. However, some public officials who have rarely written a personal check to any charity (see Biden, Joe) spend other people’s money and celebrate their moral probity. Free of responsibility for results, they demonize taxpayers who don’t want to toss money into the bottomless undifferentiated pit, of “not caring”. Let those “who know better” decide where the money goes. Texas not a blue state? No wildfire help for you! Kentucky reliably in the (R) column? What icestorm? What power outage? Tennessee under several feet of river? Wasn’t reported all that much. This distant bureaucracy removes responsibility from where it belongs, with each individual. Liberals don’t seem to think that the individual can be trusted to donate enough, or care deeply enough, to Do Something,
Note the difference between the ongoing New Orleans distress and the rest of the Gulf Coast. Many in NOLA waited to be saved, or for someone, anyone, else to act, and were angry that no government structure acted quickly. I’m not blaming the people of the city, but rather the state of mind that encouraged waiting for buses that never came, and organization that came too late, or was abdicated by the local officials. Why was Mayor Nagin re-elected? Wasn’t he supposed to be in charge of the city? What was he being paid for?
Joplin MO is being rebuilt, of course with taxpayer help; but the people got down to it once the winds stopped. I count on my neighbor, not my Senator, Congressman, or the President to help me, as I would help them. Liberals believe this is the job of a distant unaccountable entity. In which case, I will be laying under my house until it makes a touching story on the 11 o’clock news: “She left a stern note for FEMA written in splinters of broken glass and wood.”

Larry, you base your happiness on whether or not government can keep people from starving and dying on the street? God, no wonder liberals are unhappy. The burden of carrying around responsibility for every other person’s survival and well-being must be exhausting. Not to mention the lives and well-being of all the animals and insects.

Larry, in a nutshell, demonstrates the essence of liberal unhappiness. Conservatives know that government CAN’T do what liberals expect of it. Nothing creates more unhappiness than unmet expectations, and liberals always have unmet expectations. They actually think government can save every person from dying, every animal from going extinct, every insect from being stepped on, and by throwing enough money at people, we can magically erase the mistakes of past generations. How can anyone be happy with that sort of burden? And whatever is done to solve problems is never enough for a liberal. We could give all we have all the time, and it still wouldn’t be enough for people like Larry. Nine pints is never enough.

>>>>>>>>How about this for an alternative explanation: Liberals are more happy than conservatives because they believe, with the proper intervention and action by governement, the world can be a better place where we all can achieve our potential.

…so, you think government’s goal isn’t keeping order, the rule of law, or anything like that, but to make us “achieve our potential” — that is, ot make us happy. Had you told Jefferson or Washington your hare-brained idea, they would have replied — correctly — that you are either a tyrant merely looking for an excuse to grab power, or else a dupe of such a tyrant.

There are governments whose goal was, and is, to make us all “achieve our potential”. They’re known as fascist government (either in the communist or nationalist variety). The inevitable result is gulags and death camps, since once the magical utopia where we all “achieve our potential” fails to materialize despite the government seizing absolute power for this purpose, it is all blamed on secret “counter-revolutionaries”, and the whole “achieving our potential” project becomes not much more than putting in jail everybody who is deemed disloyal to the regime, under the belief that if only the last though-crime thinkers were rooted out, THEN, finally, those of us who were not purged will be able to “achieve our potential”.

Is the average liberal — self-proclaimed as oh-so-intelligent — really so stupid or terminally naive as you are, clearly having no idea what a legitimate government’s limits of power are, or what the real-world consequences of a government which takes upon itself the duty to make us all “achieve our potential” are?

Larry not only proves the point by revealing so much angry emotion,(no need to confess he’s a liberal!) but wrote,
“But to try and plumb the depths of human emotions by determining what their economic/political world view may be is ludicrous.”

The truth is that whether liberal or conservative those who attempt to think with their feelings will find it’s like trying to use a break for an engine. If liberal policies were effective, we’d have been seeing fewer, not more people on welfare and unemployment. To be dependent for survival on the wherewithal of others’ labors is to be in the position of a pet animal. Larry may feel that is indeed the case, but wisdom (logical thought) vs. emotion (feeling), says otherwise. Happiness is a journey, not a destination, and those most in control of their own journey are most likely to accomplish increasing amounts of it. Caring about the welfare of others is a good thing, but those who actually do care give from their own pockets. Societies which have governments which take from all the “haves” theoretically to divy up necessities to the “havenots,” invariably pocket as much as possible for themselves and their political, play ball friends. Such societies become corrupt in no time, complete with petty bureauocrats requiring bribes, black markets, and other gangster type operations. No country can thrive on such a premise, and there are plenty of places to go for those who prefer that worldview. It’s true that “The truth will set you free.” Unfortunately there are those who don’t want freedom, or happiness.

You think taxes should be higher to provide “equality?” Who’s stopping you from paying more?

I’ve always found that a fishing stream (whether or not the fish are biting), a cold beer and a ham sandwich makes me feel that all is right with the world. Or, a nice brandy, a good Cuban cigar, and a little Led Zepplin works too.

Oh, and a cool fall morning in the Wyoming Rockies with my horse, my dog, and the bugling elk in a misty morning meadow. And if I can put one of those elk over the saddle, better yet.

I don’t think liberals understand any of that, even with their caterwalling over the environment.

Liberal and conservative are just two ways of looking at and reacting to the world around us. Liberals are disappointed idealists who believe human nature and its situation can be made perfect. Conservatives are hopeful realists who understand how far we’ve come from a very difficult and debased past. For the liberal, existing customs and institutions are responsible for the failure they see all around. For the conservative, existing customs and institutions are the basis of current achievements and the starting point for an even stronger future. More on this in my weekly blog at http://www.thomastthomas.com.

I just want a Filipino guy who thinks his eggs over easy are DA-bomb in the cruise ship the wife-unit and I are traveling on. That’s so that when he says that I’m his idol, I can tell him that his standards are too low.

And even though Debbie Wassermann-Schulz, I’ll assume she has a passing acquaintance with Feldwebel (I Know Nothing!)Schulz, of Hogan’s Heroe’s fame, thinks, well, whatever it is that passes for thinking with her, at the end of the day, the little brown dudes that I exploited by actually setting foot on a cruise ship are going to cash out and set up shop for themselves someplace where the Jackass party can’t touch them. And I’ll bet that that just pisses her and alla the rest of those statist bastardi of the jackass party off to no end. And good for that.

Conservatives are happier because they believe that they control their destiny. Leftists are unhappy because they believe some nebulous force, likely Joooos!!, will step in at the last minute to steal away their victory and thus must rely on the kindly and timely intervention of Big Brother or Big Sister. Conservatives believe that they have control, Leftists know that they are totally dependent on the actions of others. Conservatives believe that they can achieve, Leftists know that they are only allowed to achieved. Conservatives know that they earn what they get, Leftists know that they are given what they get. Conservatives are adults earning a salary, Leftists are kids on an allowance. Conservatives are happier because they rely on themselves, Leftists live in fear of losing their allowance.

Conservatives truly believe in the motto “In God We Trust.” Our trust rests with God, who loves us no matter what. Liberals tend to put their trust in other humans. God is perfect; humans aren’t. If you constantly put your trust in other people (i.e., government), you are going to be let down all the time. You’re going to be bitter and angry constantly because your fellow humans aren’t living up to your “standards.” As for me, I know that God is in control. I may not always understand His ways, but I have peace knowing that my eternal home is with Him. I also know that we “all fall short of the glory of God.” Liberals think that mankind can provide all of the answers and lead us to some sort of Utopia. You set yourself up for frustration and bitterness with that mindset.

Now I know why I’m happier than my Liberal friends– never thought to parse this before. Like all others– I’m a cockeyed optimist.
I fully endorse the single malt scotch prescription as a pre courser to true dialogue with those with a different view — honest talk begets understanding, I’ve found.

At the end of every evening I found a bar on the ship that no one else was at. And I ordered a double Laphroaig, neat. After day two, the barkeep knew what I wanted and had it on the bar as I arrived. He also knew why it was different from everything else on his shelves. He got serious tippage. That, my friends, is capitalism in action.

AFAIK there is only one cruise vessel that is mandated to have US citizen crewmen and that is a certain Holland-America vessel whose only voyage is from CONUS to Hawaii and return. I’ll admit that I haven’t done a deep study on this but if union rules have forced these folk to have only little brown dudes and little brown babes as service crew on foreign-flagged cruise liners I can only say good on you.

On liberals’ accusation of insensitivity by not being unhappy despite the misery in the world… it made me think of Muppeteer Caroll Spinney’s children’s book “How to Be a Grouch” and the page “Learn To Be Miserable”:

#13 Larry would also like to regulate selfishness.That ought to be easy right Larry? About how much selfishness will you allot to us and of course to corporations. And if they do not want to comply with this lofty goal how shall we punish them? Shall we kill them?

It’s all power. They are weak people, who whine and fuss because it’s all they can do. They band together into impromptu tribes (isn’t that crowd chanting freaky? They never stop to evaluate whether they really want to say the stupid slogan. They just DO IT! Have you ever met a conservative who goes to such things?). How come all the schoolteachers and bureaucrats who claim to be “worth so much more, if I worked in the private sector”, never, ever do it?
Because they’re weenies. And they ain’t worth much without their union and its extortion.
That’s why.
They never dreamed that our tolerance of idiots would let them so far into the halls of power.
Stupid us!

For some years I have had a nebulous theory I call compartmentation–mental compartmentation, that is. All I record and all I feel and all I think is directed to a specific compartment in my mind based on a rather large set of filters that classify the data, subject, observation or thought and route it to its bin. Of course there are cross-correlation filters that ensure proper cross indexing for retrieval. If I assume that I have taken in my daily dose of information from many sources, I will have added to my bins and correlators quite a heavy load. So now I employ my bin selector to work on its contents free of distracting trails of thought.

Then, with my bin seletor, I can simply block out those bins I do not wish to think about at this time, which can promote a kind of local happiness devoid of the drudgery of the rest of the world’s problems.

But not always, and not forever. Sanity prevails, so real problems get their turn when their time comes, hence I control my subjects, and my hard times to my own satisfaction. A higher level of satisfaction and happiness results.

This compartmentation has its parallels in acting, where the actor fills his bins with his lines, data about his character, and his acting method, and so forth, and works on that set while on stage.

Perhaps liberals cannot control their bin selector very well, and are hence contiunously inundated with the bins full of horrors of the world and a lot of noise. What unhappiness!

I think the difference is this. Conservatives want to live THEIR own lives and find their own happiness while liberals such as Larry at number 13 live for making rules for every one ELSE.

Their happiness depends not on what they do but on what they can force others to do. Gay liberals are not content to live in a committed relationship; they tell us that they can’t be happy unless everybody else accepts THEIR definition of marriage. Michael Bloomberg can’t be happy enjoying a small drink himself; he thinks no one else should have a large drink. Those tolerant liberals are accepting of every one else … as long as they think just like they do.

“How about this for an alternative explanation: Liberals are more happy than conservatives because they believe, with the proper intervention and action by governement, the world can be a better place where we all can achieve our potential. Conservatives are less happy because they spend all of their time fighting progress and change and trying to keep things as they are.”

I had to scrape the arrogance and condescension off my monitor after Larry’s comments appeared on it.

Liberals ideas,values and desires are never in question, even though in practice they have never worked. In other words liberals like Larry are smugly self satisfied because they’re better than you and me; who wouldn’t be happy when you are so secure in the knowledge of your own superiority.

Thomas Sowell once said something to that effect. I don’t have the exact quote at hand but it went something like this: Liberals aren’t concerned with which policy would have the most beneficial effect on the problem at hand. They are concerned with which policy will gain them membership into which ever group allows them to think more highly of themselves as they seek to divide the world into “us” and “them”.

I tend to buy into the “faith” rationale here. I became a Reformed Presbyterian several years ago and it’s a great comfort knowing that I am exactly where the Lord wants me to be, that there was a purpose in my life that was served even by my bad decisions.

And of course the “marriage” rationale follows from all that.

When I have been unhappy in my life, it was usually those times when I felt like a had a great task in front of me for which I was inadequate. That might explain some part of liberal angst, being responsible for righting all the wrongs in the world, when it’s already a daunting task just righting our own wrongs.

The real question is, why would a liberal check a box indicating he was less happy, whereas a conservative would check a box indicating more happiness? Because, really… how can a survey subjectively rate comparative happiness of two individuals? The answer is it can’t it can only rate a comparative indication on how those individuals self identify their own happiness.

And the answer is that, if you were happy, it would be kinda pointless to be liberal. Liberalism is all about being unhappy or offended or concerned about this or that or the other cause.

Its hard to be a liberal progressive. While conservatives take a stay-cation at home and work on family and church, the liberals are going to Hojo’s to sit at the pool and run to the ice machine at $90 to $125 a night. When you do not have that kind of money, a conservative will take their kids to a pool for $8 a person or buy one from Walmart for $150.00 and stay home. We are happier because we are wiser and are not burdend by fighting our neighbors and citizens for what they have. We just want to keep what precious little we have.

I happily eliminated my relationship, with the liberals in my life,including my brother, and some cousins. I just got tired of their snarky comments, and haveing to argue with them all of the time. If a liberal can,t back up a position with facts, they always go for the personal attack. No man is a prophet in his own house.

I agree with much of what other commenters have stated. I’m not sure I agree with the premise – that conservatives are happier than liberals. There are plenty of miserable a-holes on both ends of the political spectrum. And we all know that surveys tend to yield results that confirm their authors’ prejudices. If there’s any truth in this one, though, I’d say it’s due to differing expectations and self-images.

To me, as a conservative, life looks like organized chaos. The world is unpredictable, hostile to some degree, and we have to constantly steer around the problems and disappointments that it throws at us. I don’t expect it to be any other way. I do expect other people not to hinder me while I navigate this rough ocean. I do not expect other people to help me – which is why I’m especially grateful when they do. On the same principle, I try not to be an obstacle to others as they make their way through life but I do help them when the opportunity occurs. This approach doesn’t make the world a better place, but it does seem to enable most people to get along without undue suffering.

The one thing I’m not is exceptional. I do not need to “make a difference.” I need to live “Life Human MK1 1EA” That’s it. If you’re drowning, I’ll jump in and fish you out of the water. I won’t heroically lay down my life and fortune on a crusade to ensure that no one ever drowns again. That’s not how life works, and I’m not a hero.

A liberal, as far as I can tell, simply demands more of life than I do. Not desires – demands. He particularly demands more regularity, consistency, and safety than life historically and self-evidently offers. And a liberal is, in his imagination anyway, a world-changing hero – someone who “made a difference.” Trouble is, the differences most people make are tiny and intimate, not world-changing. And so the liberal is disappointed in life and in himself. Unhappy.

Now it’s time for me to go home to my life of social and economic inequality. Gosh, I hope I can stand it.